[Bryan]

Wanted: Obama healthcare reform volunteers willing to be paid $15 an hour | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Um, what? Really? That just seems wrong.

[jthomas1600]

So you create the impression that there are tons of people willing to give up their time for free to make their voices herd when in fact they may be in it just for the money. Brilliant.

Another way to manipulate public perception is for the President to simply tell the media what should and should not be reported. I found the first few paragraphs of this article interesting.

The Facts

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

So you create the impression that there are tons of people willing to give up their time for free to make their voices herd when in fact they may be in it just for the money. Brilliant.

Another way to manipulate public perception is for the President to simply tell the media what should and should not be reported. I found the first few paragraphs of this article interesting.

The Facts

What I found interesting is that the House plan is estimated to cost over $1 TRILLION (over 10 years), but he'll do this, "He noted a congressional estimate that legislation being considered in the Senate could cost $800 billion to $900 billion over 10 years."

I'm waiting to get my WH email. A question I'm starting to ask myself is, "whose plan is this - Congress or the WH?"

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

So you create the impression that there are tons of people willing to give up their time for free to make their voices herd when in fact they may be in it just for the money. Brilliant.

Do you really think that campaign workers in any campaign all work for free?

As to the implication that the left is buying protesters. I looked at the site linked by the LA Times and didn't find that.

Another way to manipulate public perception is for the President to simply tell the media what should and should not be reported. I found the first few paragraphs of this article interesting.

The president has no control over the media. Bush tried that more than once.

I'm waiting to get my WH email. A question I'm starting to ask myself is, "whose plan is this - Congress or the WH?"

The bills were sponsored and voted on by Congress.

The cited cost is misleading in several ways. In addition to the inherent prejudice in talking about a 10-year budget when so much else is looked at year-to-year: it ignores that much of that trillion dollars is already being spent in other programs (like indigent care) that UHC will replace; nor does it reflect any of the savings we hope to incur with UHC

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The bills were sponsored and voted on by Congress.

The cited cost is misleading in several ways. In addition to the inherent prejudice in talking about a 10-year budget when so much else is looked at year-to-year: it ignores that much of that trillion dollars is already being spent in other programs (like indigent care) that UHC will replace; nor does it reflect any of the savings we hope to incur with UHC

So, which is it? $1 trillion or $800 to $900 billion. Which is the House approved total and which is the Senate approved total? If Congress (House and Senate) voted on it, shouldn't we just have one number?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

So, which is it? $1 trillion or $800 to $900 billion. Which is the House approved total and which is the Senate approve total. If Congress (House and Senate) voted on it, shouldn't we just have one number?

You seem to be making some false presuppositions.

There are (IIRC) four bills at present. Three in the house and one in the senate. Once the Senate and House each pass their own separate bills, the two will go into negotiation to create a combined bill which will go to the president to sign.

This is how pretty much all laws are passed (sometimes one will pass one chamber, usually the house, and get moved to the other for a vote as is; but most major things have two competing bills).

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You seem to be making some false presuppositions.

There are (IIRC) four bills at present. Three in the house and one in the senate. Once the Senate and House each pass their own separate bills, the two will go into negotiation to create a combined bill which will go to the president to sign.

This is how pretty much all laws are passed (sometimes one will pass one chamber, usually the house, and get moved to the other for a vote as is; but most major things have two competing bills).

How is it a false presuppositions? You have to quit making such generalizations. When I read your comment that it was already voted on in Congress, it appears you were saying it was a done deal, which we know it is not. Simple misunderstanding, that's all it was.

However, in the article, Obama stated that the Senate version was $800 to $900 billion, which, if I were him, I would use the lower number if I were trying to sell the country on. He has to try. But, it may be the $1 trillion House version that prevails - though I doubt it given the level of discussion that is being generated.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

If Congress (House and Senate) voted on it, shouldn't we just have one number?

Originally Posted by JerryL

You seem to be making some false presuppositions.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

How is it a false presuppositions?

Well. The question is a presupposition in that it presupposes that the house and senate have both voted on one bill... and that presupposition is false because they have not both voted on one bill.

You have to quit making such generalizations.

I think I was very specific.

When I read your comment that it was already voted on in Congress, it appears you were saying it was a done deal, which we know it is not. Simple misunderstanding, that's all it was.

I did not intend to give that impression. I was answering your question. I was specific in mentioning that there was more than one bill involved.

However, in the article, Obama stated that the Senate version was $800 to $900 billion, which, if I were him, I would use the lower number if I were trying to sell the country on.

But what if you were trying to sell the country without misleading them by deliberately only using the number that most benefited you?

He has to try. But, it may be the $1 trillion House version that prevails - though I doubt it given the level of discussion that is being generated.

Whatever comes out will be a compromise bill. All we can really do is estimate based on the bills in the house and senate now.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well. The question is a presupposition in that it presupposes that the house and senate have both voted on one bill... and that presupposition is false because they have not both voted on one bill.

I think I was very specific.

I did not intend to give that impression. I was answering your question. I was specific in mentioning that there was more than one bill involved.

But what if you were trying to sell the country without misleading them by deliberately only using the number that most benefited you?

However, I said that was the impression I got, which was a misunderstanding. Can we just leave it at that? And I certainly don't understand what you're trying to say in your last sentence. That assumes you know his motives.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

However, I said that was the impression I got, which was a misunderstanding. Can we just leave it at that?

Sure

And I certainly don't understand what you're trying to say in your last sentence. That assumes you know his motives.

Both your statement and mine presume motives. I just suggested a different motive (one which created a conclusion consistent with observed behavior)..

*If* you were Obama and *if* you were trying to be honest in selling healthcare, *then* wouldn't you mention the range of numbers?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

*If* you were Obama and *if* you were trying to be honest in selling healthcare, *then* wouldn't you mention the range of numbers?

Then, to be completely honest, the range should include the $1 trillion.